Hello, --- Abel Wisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in the analogy, even if the property manager IS allowed, this > subscription is > never more then one month lease, iow 1/12 of $ 6 and not equal to 7 > years
Good point, Abel. I was looking at Chuck's analogy, and it got me thinking. If the analogy of a "Property Manager's Waiting List" is appropriate to their proposal, aren't we getting close to discovering PRIOR ART to assist in invalidating any patents that SnapNames has licensed to Verisign as part of their deal? I've done a search for SnapNames patent applications, but have been unable to find them. If someone else has an idea what they are, I think many would be curious, especially as they seem to contribute to the $40 proposed wholesale price that WLS would cost registrars, should the plan ever reach fruition. Challenging patents might help to lower the cost to a more reasonable 50 cents per name wholesale cost as Abel suggests. In a competitive tendering system (i.e. if there is a WLS II from a competitor to Verisign), 50 cents might be the price that others might charge to run such a system. I think someone brought up the issue of internet standards before with regards to the RFCs. One of the things that I believe IETF, W3.org, ANSI, ISO and other standards working committees look at when considering using a technology as part of a proposed "standard" is whether patents are attached to it. Ones that do tend to be deprecated, in favour of cheaper proposals that will not require royalties or licensing fees and can thus have widespread competition and innovation. >From what I've seen, the Afternic proposal does not have these patent issues being a factor in costs. The "Let's Make George Kirikos a Multi-Millionaire Proposal" and the "Status Quo Proposal" don't have patent issues either that affect registrar costs. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
